Game Reward Systems: Gaming Experiences and Social Meanings
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Game Reward Systems: Gaming Experiences and Social Meanings Hao Wang National Chiao Tung University, Department of Computer Science 1001, Ta Hsieh Road, Hsinchu City, Taiwan [email protected] Chuen-Tsai Sun National Chiao Tung University, Department of Computer Science 1001, Ta Hsieh Road, Hsinchu City, Taiwan [email protected] ABSTRACT The authors give an overview of how various video game reward systems provide positive experiences to players, and propose classifications for rewards and reward characteristics for further analysis. We also discuss what reward systems encourage players to do, and describe how they provide fun even before players receive their rewards. Next, we describe how game reward systems can be used to motivate or change behaviors in the physical world. One of our main suggestions is that players can have fun with both rewards and reward mechanisms—enjoying rewards while reacting to the motivation that such rewards provide. Based on relevant psychological theories, we discuss how reward mechanisms foster intrinsic motivation while giving extrinsic rewards. We think that reward systems and mechanisms in modern digital games provide social meaning for players primarily through motivation, enhanced status within gaming societies, and the use of rewards as social tools. Keywords game design, reward system, motivation, social interaction in games, flow INTRODUCTION Examples of videogame rewards include virtual items received after completing World of Warcraft (Blizzard, 2004) quests, added points and visual effect after clearing block lines in Tetris, and finding treasure items in secret hiding places in the Super Mario Bros series (Nintendo). Reward systems can be viewed as player motivators or as compromises for easing disappointment. In modern video games, reward systems also provide social meaning within and outside of games (Reeves & Read, 2009; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). To our knowledge, there is plenty of information and multiple theories in the psychology literature on optimal experiences, intrinsically motivating environments, sense of accomplishment, satisfaction, choice, and other concepts that reward system designers can take advantage of. Reward mechanisms provide sense of fun by fostering intrinsically rewarding experiences and are equally or more important than the extrinsic rewards that are distributed. The term “intrinsic” we use in this paper is about fun of playing itself while “extrinsic” is about the actual reward. Our goal in this paper is to review and analyze the main structural features of videogame reward systems. Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play. © 2011 Authors & Digital Games Research Association DiGRA. Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed, commercial use requires specific permission from the author. Specifically, after classifying rewards and discussing their use and effects, we will suggest characteristics for analyzing rewards, and discuss how players use them. ABOUT PLAY Reward systems differ based on type of play, and have different effects on players according to their preferences and motivations. Social and cultural contexts also determine how reward systems affect gaming experiences. Huizinga (2003), one of the first to argue that culture is derived from play and to stress the cultural function of play, suggested that play has five characteristics: it is a free activity, therefore anyone forced to play is not actually playing; it is separate from ordinary life; it involves no real-world profit; it proceeds according to fixed rules within temporal and spatial boundaries; and players tend to form social groups marked by secrecy and separation from other groups. These characteristics, which have attracted much research attention and discussion, are associated with general play rather than video game play. Some ideas may not fit video game contexts—for example, a World of Warcraft player may not feel free to leave a game at any time because of social pressure from teammates or fellow guild members. In addition, reward systems sometimes make players play for extrinsic reward like virtual items while not really enjoy the play activity itself. Web games and Facebook games are examples of play that blur temporal and spatial boundaries—people can play games at any time, even during work time in their offices. In Man, Play and Games, Caillois (2001) proposed four characteristics for game classification. The first, Agôn (“competition”) is typical of sports and most games involving two or more players. Games that have Agôn are promoted in many societies because they imply training, discipline, perseverance, and other positive characteristics. Reward systems provide things that are easy to compare between players like scores and virtual items thus can add Agôn to many kinds of games. Alea (“chance”) means that players have no control over game outcomes; Alea deemphasizes or eliminates the skills and other attributes that Agôn promotes. Unlike Huizinga, Caillois gave serious consideration to games of chance involving gambling. The fun of chance itself is also an important element in reward systems. The third characteristic, mimicry (“simulation”) refers to make-believe play, in which players portray imaginary characters. Ilinx (“vertigo”) refers to the characteristic of players temporarily surrendering their physical or mental stability—for instance, taking a fear-inducing rollercoaster ride. These characteristics are not mutually exclusive: in most sports, both competition and chance contribute to enjoyment. Games can also be analyzed in terms of rule influence and structure—that is, in terms of paidia (“turbulent, improvisational play”) or ludus (“play with tight, fixed rules”). The video game The Sims is more paidia, while Starcraft is more ludus. Sutton-Smith (1997) has analyzed play according to seven value systems that he refers to as rhetorics: (a) play as progress—children can adapt and develop through play; (b) play as fate—games of chance (gambling) in which players surrender control over outcomes; (c) play as power—using play as a form of conflict, mostly applied to sports and contests; (d) play as identity—that is, maintaining social group identity in the form of activities such as festivals and carnivals; (e) play as imaginary—play as creative activities in a visionary context; (f) play as self—solitary activities ranging from hobbies such as stamp collecting to immersive activities such as mountain climbing; (g) play as frivolous activity—nothing is considered productive outside the boundaries of play. The first six rhetorics entail possible real-world benefits, and therefore suggest that play can be justified. Reward systems can create a sense of progress by providing, for example, -- 2 -- developable avatars. The play as power element can be added to games through rewards comparable between players. Recently, there are also games that provide collectable rewards. Salen and Zimmerman (2004) have grouped aspects of play into three categories: game play, ludic activities, and being playful. The first category is only applied to games. They suggest that the goal of successful game design is creating meaningful play, which occurs when relationships between player actions and outcomes are discernable (clearly perceived by players) and integrated (actions affect play experience in subsequent games). Reward systems help build relationships and make them stronger over time; immediate feedback makes outcomes discernable, while rewards that can be accumulated and used later make outcomes integrative. PLEASURE AND MOTIVATION IN VIDEO GAMES Many researchers have tried to clarify why people play video games. LeBlanc (2004) has proposed an MDA (mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics) model for game design analysis that includes a list of eight kinds of fun: sensation, fantasy, narrative, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression, and submission (see also Hunicke, 2004). Lazzaro (2004) has listed four keys to creating emotion in video games as hard fun, easy fun, altered state, and a people factor. Bartle’s (1996) four player categories, based on multi- user dungeon (MUD) games, are achievers, killers, socializers, and explorers—a taxonomy that corresponds to player activities. Based on player responses to massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs), Yee (2007) has extended Bartle’s taxonomy to propose three major MMORPG gaming components: achievement, immersion, and social interaction. According to Ryan et al. (2006), the pull of a game is sometimes associated with out-of-game effects. Using self-determination theory (SDT), they posit that the pull of games largely results from their ability to generate (at least in the short term) three key feelings of well-being: autonomy (sense of willingness), competence (challenge and feeling of effectance), and relatedness (feeling of connection with other people). Koster (2005) views game fun in terms of four categories: fun, aesthetic appreciation, visceral reactions, and social status maneuvers. In that taxonomy, fun focuses on mastering a problem mentally—that is, recognizing new patterns based on our brain’s desire for stimuli. Thus, Koster’s definition of a good game is one that teaches a player all aspects of the game before the player stops playing. In the following sections, we analyze how reward systems provide pleasure and satisfying experiences by classifying rewards and playing activities, and relate reward mechanics to psychological theories. FORMS OF REWARD